quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
"If your project is for fun, Win2K is perfectly fine."

Since when did Windows 2000 get demoted from a professional platform for professional server solutions?

You complain about using words like "right" and "wrong" yet seem to feel it's okay to demean projects simply because they choose one OS over another.

Windows 2000 works as well as Linux for a professional solution. It's just more expensive which I don't have a problem with. I think MS deserves the $200 for Windows 2000. It's a great product.

---

If the original poster is hurt by that comment, I sincerely apologize. That's certainly not how I intended that statement to be interpreted. The previous poster is making false assumptions about what I didn't say. The previous poster likes to take everything as a personal attack, and will no doubt do his best to reduce this to a sniveling religious war on why OS of the month is better than anything since partitioned harddrives. No thanks, not today. I'll sit this one out KalvinB. Flame away bro, I'm leaving for vacation...

[edited by - fingh on August 7, 2002 8:35:18 PM]

It's very simple, Fingh; Don't attack a project because they're looking to run it on a certain OS.

Saying it's okay to use Win2K if the project is for fun implies it's not okay to use Win2K if it's not for fun (e.g. a professional project). Whether or not that's what you meant doesn't change the fact that it's exactly what it sounds like.

Claiming I'm trying to start an OS war is as rediculous as your orginal statement I objected to. Instead of getting all defensive because of what I said, maybe you should explain to the audience what was actually meant by your statement which comes of very rude and demeaning.

Maybe you should take care of this little misunderstanding before your vacation to get it out of mind. Currently, I have no reason to take back my interpretation of your words because you've failed to offer an alternative explaination.

I didn't take it as a personal attack. I took it as a generally obnoxious statement that you need to explain.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | GameShot ]

[edited by - KalvinB on August 7, 2002 9:08:52 PM]

Geez, KalvinB. Does everyone need to explain their opinions? Are you sure you''re not starting a flame war?

Sashka - if you absolutely cannot find a friend to host your server, cannot host it yourself, and can''t afford a dedicated server, then about the only thing you can do is to find a webhost out there that will let you run it on their machine (or maybe talk to your ISP). One option would be to check out one of those MUD server host sites. Google should pull up a few. One of those might host it for a price. Either that, or beg on the boards for someone to host it for you

I wrote a server for a game I made, and I tested it on my machine, even though I''m behind a firewall, I''ll bet it''s possible for you to host it yourself, but I know nothing about this kind of thing, so I can''t offer any help.

Well... I know your problem... I am a network client too... the host computer runs a firewall as well and I''m having problems with running servers too... the problem is people connect to your host pc when they connect to the ip of the internet connection of your network. You, as a client, have an internal ip address... they can''t connect to it from the outside. You could solve the problem by making another app which passes the info it gets from clients who connect to the server to the server, like this:

Client (connects to your server) -> New application (on network host computer) -> Server of your game (running on your computer, a network client)

So the actual server is on the host pc, but most of the work is done on your own pc. The new application just passes the data. I think this might slow things a bit though, but if both pcs are quite fast and so is your network, it shouldn''t be a problem if your game doesn''t serve thousands of ppl at the same time

HA HA HA HA HA!
choice quotes to laugh at, considering whose mouth (well, fingers) they came from:

quote:

---

It''s very simple, Fingh; Don''t attack a project because they''re looking to run it on a certain OS.

---

quote:

---

Whether or not that''s what you meant doesn''t change the fact that it''s exactly what it sounds like.

---

quote:

---

Instead of getting all defensive because of what I said, maybe you should explain to the audience what was actually meant by your statement which comes of very rude and demeaning.

---

quote:

---

I didn''t take it as a personal attack. I took it as a generally obnoxious statement that you need to explain.

---

quote:

---

Original post by Cahaan
Hmmmm... Why does some people think that Linux is "better" than the latest windows OS to run a server ?

Besides all flame wars, I''d like to know if there''s any truth beyond that (objective people please... )

---

Not sure if I''m objective , but I''ve been running HTTP servers on Windows 2k and XP, and a Linux server (not actually running it myself, but admin some). I think Linux servers are a bit better, as it''s has a more stable kernel and has a more secure foundation, and is more suited for a 24/7 server. My windows servers, I need to reboot at least once a week, while I know alot of Linux servers that been running for years, and still are as "fresh" as when they was booted.

i mentioned linux and everyone went mad

i only said Linux caus all shell providers run it as well as a vast majority of dedicated game server providers

quote:

---

Original post by Cahaan
Hmmmm... Why does some people think that Linux is "better" than the latest windows OS to run a server ?

Besides all flame wars, I''d like to know if there''s any truth beyond that (objective people please... )

[edited by - Cahaan on August 7, 2002 4:37:03 AM]

---

I don''t think that either one is better than the other. It depends on what you''re looking for I guess. If you want an ISP to host the solution for you, then you are probably better off going for Linux to keep your costs down, for a number of reasons. First, Linux is free. An ISP can''t justify charging you a lot more to host something like that unless it''s a bandwidth issue.

Second, many ISP''s can''t/aren''t willing to host a dedicated exe on their machines because they fear the security issues associated with it and the maintenance. What it boils down to is their knowhow of Windows. Unfortunately, many of them simply don''t have the technical knowledge to lock it down properly. It can be done, they just don''t know how.

What that does though, is limit the number of ISP''s that you can turn to in order to have them host it. If (for the sake of argument) there were only 20 servers in the world, half linux and half windows, and only half of the windows servers allowed it, you''ve cut in half your options for windows machines. Now look at the costs. Linux solutions are almost always cheaper.

If you host it yourself, use whatever you''re more comfortable with. I would actually recommend that you do that in any case. Personally, I prefer Windows. But as I said, it''s a personal preference. It shouldn''t be taken as a rule.

Another option you might seek is colocation. If you build your own rack server, you can get it colocated somewhere for under $75/month, including bandwidth if you look hard enough. Then, you can do anything you want with it. You''ll have to shell out for the hardware and software though.

First decide what you need. Then, decide how much you can afford(if anything). Then, look for the solution to your problems.

---

Looking for an honest video game publisher? Visit www.gamethoughts.com

on linux v. -> mostly it''s a religious war. though if you''re looking for uptime and not needing to reboot linux/freeBSB tend to be more stable than win. any internet company i''ve worked for hasn''t even considered using windows to host their servers for stabilty/security issues. whatever, i also live in communist San Francisco, so i''m inherrently biased

as for how do you host a server of any kind. it''s pretty simple.

1) get someone to host it for you.

--or--

2) have a bunch of money. get DSL and get a block of static IP addresses. set up something like this:

                    DSL modem/ROUTER                           |                           |                    ______HUB___________                   |                    |                   |                    |            NAT box (static IP)   Firewall (hardware of software)                   |                    |                   |                    |         Your home network        Game server (static IP)        (DHCP served addys) 

you generally don''t want servers in your home network if you have enough dollars to avoid it. servers have a much better chance of being compromized than non-servers for obvious reasons. if a server gets compromized and it''s inside your home network you could loose all the data you care about, or just be hassled endlessly. just common sense running a network things.

if you don''t want to go crazy dollar-wise w/ the home network thing (i''m a bit paranoid), just remove the right side of the tree, and 9 times out of 10 you''ll be fine. but don''t ever go without any kind of protection upstream from your home network. you''ll be compromized in a second. NAT boxes serving DHCP addresses are usually good nough for home network stuff.

-me